John P Bowles's Legal Cases (13)

Foreclosure

Romani v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 14-35018

N/A

OUTCOME: Arguments Pending

Romani seeks to ensure compliance with the OTDA when an entity seeks to invoke the power of sale to foreclose a residential trust deed non-judicially. Romani contends that the District Court committed ... error in two particulars: first, by denying Plaintiff leave to Amend to allege a facial defect in the Trustee’s Notice of Sale on the basis that ORS 86.770 prohibits challenges to completed sales and second, in holding that a completed sale may not be challenged. Plaintiff does not assign any error to the denial of attorney fees to Defendants. The facts in this matter are largely undisputed and turn on questions of statutory interpretation. Romani’s Complaint, Amended Complaint and Proposed Second Amended Complaint, which is the subject of this appeal, were filed in United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division under Case No. 3:11-CV-00382-PA. Defendants moved for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 56(a). The Honorable Judge Owen Panner denied Romani leave to Amend her Complaint and dismissed Romani’s claims pursuant to the Opinions and Orders dated December 12, 2013 and Judgment of Dismissal also dated December 12, 2013. Romani appealed from the United States District Court to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 8, 2014. First, did the District Court correctly rule that the Trustee’s Notice of Sale (the “TNS”) under ORS 86.745(1) need not list the name of the beneficiary as defined by ORS 86.705(2) and required by ORS 86.745(1) and did the District Court improperly deny Plaintiff leave to Amend her Complaint? Second, did the District Court correctly rule that ORS 86.770 bars any challenge to a completed non-judicial foreclosure sale where Plaintiff has alleged defective notice under ORS 86.745(1)? Third, did the District Court correctly rule that Defendants are not entitled to an award of Attorney’s Fees?

Foreclosure

Isidro Oropeza Juarez v. The Bank of New York Mellon, et al. Or. App. A154455

N/A

OUTCOME: Settled

Plaintiff-Appellant Isidro Oropeza Juarez (“Homeowner”) filed an action for declaratory relief against Defendants The Bank of New York Mellon FKA The Bank of New York, as Successor Trustee to JPMorgan ... Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Holders of the SAMI II Trust 2006-AR6 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR6 (“BNY”) and ReconTrust Company N.A. (“Recon”). Homeowner alleged that Defendants failed to comply with the Oregon Trust Deed Act (“OTDA”) during the process of selling his property by failing to provide definitive documentation of the beneficiary’s interest and right to foreclose as required by the Oregon Trust Deed Act and that the non-judicial foreclosure and sale of his home should be declared invalid and voided. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds that completed non-judicial foreclosure sales may not be challenged and that Plaintiff failed to allege the ability to cure the default as purportedly required by ORS 86.742. See Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Trial Court agreed with Defendants and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint on May 9, 2013. Plaintiff timely filed its Notice of Appeal on June 7, 2013.

Foreclosure

Woods et al. v. U.S. Bank National Association et al. United State Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 13-36037

N/A

OUTCOME: Arguments Pending

The facts in this matter are largely undisputed and turn on questions of statutory interpretation. Two issues are presented to the United States District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for revi ... ew. First, did the District Court correctly rule that ORS 86.770 bars any challenge to a completed non-judicial foreclosure sale where Plaintiff has alleged defective notice under ORS 86.745(1)? Second, did the District Court correctly rule that the Trustee’s Notice of Sale (the “TNS”) under ORS 86.745(1) need not list the name of the beneficiary as defined by ORS 86.705(2) and required by ORS 86.745(1)? On February 24, 2006, Woods executed a Promissory Note (the “Note”) with non-party Homefield Financial, Inc. (hereinafter “Homefield” or “Lender”). The Note was secured by a Trust Deed on March 10, 2006 (the “DOT”). On September 30, 2012, non-party Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., (“MERS”) executed an Assignment of the DOT purporting to assign the Note and the DOT to USB as Trustee for the Trust. Woods alleged that MERS was never an owner of Woods’ Loan and at no time had any interest whatever in the Note and was merely an agent of USB. On September 30, 2010, USB executed an Appointment of Successor Trustee naming Defendant Recon as Successor Trustee. This Appointment was recorded in Clackamas County on October 5, 2010. On May 23, 2011, USB assigned the DOT to Non-Party BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, FKA Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, C/O BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (hereinafter “BAC”). This assignment of the DOT was recorded on May 25, 2011. On May 25, 2011, Recon executed and recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell (the “NOD”) against Woods’ property, alleging a default under the Promissory Note and initiating a non-judicial foreclosure of Woods’ property. This NOD was recorded in Clackamas County under Recording No. 2011-030862. The NOD never references or identifies either USB or BAC as the beneficiary in any way. Recon executed a TNS pursuant to ORS 86.740 and caused it to be published pursuant to ORS 86.750. The TNS never references or identifies either USB or BAC as the beneficiary in any way. Woods’ home was sold at auction on February 14, 2012 at which time USB took title to the Property via Trustee’s Deed executed February 17, 2012. Woods then filed a Complaint in United States District Court under Case No. 3:12-CV-01052-BR on June 12, 2012, and Amended their Complaint on July 2, 2013. Defendants Moved to Dismiss Woods’ Complaint on August 1, 2013. The Trial Court dismissed Woods’ Complaint via Opinion and Order dated October 10, 2013. Pursuant to its Opinion and Order, the Trial Court issued a Judgment of Dismissal on October 10, 2013. Woods appealed the Judgment of the Trial Court on November 4, 2013.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained